Democrats' strategy: Start slinging
Negative advertisements have hit the airwaves early as Democratic candidates fight to preserve the party's congressional majority.
By JEFF ZELENY, New York Times

WASHINGTON -- Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.

Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups."

Democrats' strategy: Start slinging
Negative advertisements have hit the airwaves early as Democratic candidates fight to preserve the party's congressional majority.
By JEFF ZELENY, New York Times

WASHINGTON -- Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.

Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups."

"Tax filings?"
When did that start to matter to Democrats???:D

RK

You have Lee Atwater and his disciple, Karl Rove to thank for perfecting this technique. Unfortunately, they also proved it very effective, and therefore, it's not going away anytime soon. Didn't you think your very own techniques would be used against you when the tables were turned? Same goes for filibusters and procedural loopholes. Neither side has exclusive claim to dirty politics.

road kill

09-26-2010, 01:03 PM

You have Lee Atwater and his disciple, Karl Rove to thank for perfecting this technique. Unfortunately, they also proved it very effective, and therefore, it's not going away anytime soon. Didn't you think your very own techniques would be used against you when the tables were turned? Same goes for filibusters and procedural loopholes. Neither side has exclusive claim to dirty politics.

I think your party has Obama to thank for having nothing else but this as strategy!!:D

RK

dnf777

09-26-2010, 01:07 PM

I think your party has Obama to thank for having nothing else but this as strategy!!:D

RK

You're probably right about that. Except its not my party.
I already have two republicans and one democrat that I will be supporting in my state and local elections this fall.

depittydawg

09-26-2010, 05:27 PM

You're probably right about that. Except its not my party.
I already have two republicans and one democrat that I will be supporting in my state and local elections this fall.

Surely you jest? Have these Republicans somehow convinced you that they will NOT VOTE THE PARTY line as instructed in the future? If indeed they have I encourage you to monitor their voting performance after the election and see if you've been had again.

Buzz

09-26-2010, 05:51 PM

I'm with dipitty

YardleyLabs

09-26-2010, 06:05 PM

I will admit that I used to vote for a mixture of Republicans and Democrats on a regular basis. I stopped as a result of the contract on America and the impeachment attack on Clinton. The moderate Republicans I had supported all voted for impeachment on party line votes. I wil never vote for a Republican in Federal office again unless the party divorces itself from the religious right and the political morality of Newt Gingrich. Instead it seems to be aligning itself closer and closer to both.

dnf777

09-26-2010, 07:03 PM

Neither republican I am supporting is at the national level. I agree with Jeff's assessment of the national republican party.

For a while I held hope that the tea party was a grass roots, conservative leaning effort to retake our gov't from the hands of industry and lobbyists. That ended when I found out that industry and lobbyists like Dick Armey are the heart of the tea party. Throw in some of the extreme religious types, (not even counting the Wiccans) and its main purpose may be to enable dems to keep the congress and the whitehouse for years to come.

depittydawg

09-26-2010, 07:07 PM

I will admit that I used to vote for a mixture of Republicans and Democrats on a regular basis. I stopped as a result of the contract on America and the impeachment attack on Clinton. The moderate Republicans I had supported all voted for impeachment on party line votes. I wil never vote for a Republican in Federal office again unless the party divorces itself from the religious right and the political morality of Newt Gingrich. Instead it seems to be aligning itself closer and closer to both.

My sentiments exactly. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is rapidly approaching the same level of distrust.

david gibson

09-26-2010, 09:42 PM

I will admit that I used to vote for a mixture of Republicans and Democrats on a regular basis. I stopped as a result of the contract on America and the impeachment attack on Clinton. The moderate Republicans I had supported all voted for impeachment on party line votes. I wil never vote for a Republican in Federal office again unless the party divorces itself from the religious right and the political morality of Newt Gingrich. Instead it seems to be aligning itself closer and closer to both.

so you feel its perfectly acceptable for a president to get blowjobs in the oval office and then lie about it.

sadly, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

luvmylabs23139

09-26-2010, 09:47 PM

I stopped as a result of the contract on America and the impeachment attack on Clinton. .

Clinton as President lied under oath. For that he should have been impeached!
I don't give a rat's butt about what he did with Monica. I do care that he lied UNDER OATH:rolleyes:

dnf777

09-26-2010, 09:47 PM

so you feel its perfectly acceptable for a president to get blowjobs in the oval office and then lie about it.

sadly, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

Darn, I hope we're not out of popcorn! This is gonna be gooooood!

david gibson

09-26-2010, 10:21 PM

Darn, I hope we're not out of popcorn! This is gonna be gooooood!

dont wad your panties up just yet dave, i have nothing else to say but what i just said. he lied under oath. period. how can it be good unless someone tries to claim he didnt lie under oath?

too tired after a long weekend of hunt tests and glowing with a master pass shine regards......

dnf777

09-26-2010, 10:43 PM

dont wad your panties up just yet dave, i have nothing else to say but what i just said. he lied under oath. period. how can it be good unless someone tries to claim he didnt lie under oath?

too tired after a long weekend of hunt tests and glowing with a master pass shine regards......

Congrats on the pass.

I don't refute what happened. I don't refute he lied about it. I will refute whether that rose to the level of treason or other impeachable offense. His predecessor said "read my lips, no new taxes." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall impeachment hearings when he increased taxes?? That WAS a lie, wasn't it?

Notice the restraint....I'm not even mentioning the other guy....

Again, congrats on the pass.

david gibson

09-26-2010, 10:50 PM

Congrats on the pass.

I don't refute what happened. I don't refute he lied about it. I will refute whether that rose to the level of treason or other impeachable offense. His predecessor said "read my lips, no new taxes." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall impeachment hearings when he increased taxes?? That WAS a lie, wasn't it?

Notice the restraint....I'm not even mentioning the other guy....

Again, congrats on the pass.

and exactly what oath was Bush Sr. under at that time???? maybe i missed that part, but lying under oath is a criminal offense, a felony in fact. general political lies are expected - hell Obama tops the charts with all his transparency etc...... - its a simple word dave - OATH - that is the key difference.

thanks for the congrats. man these three series 2-day events are a lot different from jr and sr....but a lot more satisfying when you succeed.

we do have some creeping corrections to accomplish in the next 2 weeks though....

Gerry Clinchy

09-26-2010, 10:59 PM

don't refute what happened. I don't refute he lied about it. I will refute whether that rose to the level of treason or other impeachable offense.

Lying under oath is perjury ... a criminal offense. Does a POTUS get a "get out of jail free card" for a criminal offense? Only certain criminal offenses?

His predecessor said "read my lips, no new taxes." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall impeachment hearings when he increased taxes?? That WAS a lie, wasn't it? Since campaign promises are routinely not made under oath, that would be on a par with O's promise to close Gitmo, or no more "pork", or putting bills on the Internet for 5 days before votes, or putting Congressional debates on CNN?

,,,,,,,,,,,,

depittydawg

09-26-2010, 11:33 PM

Congrats on the pass.

I don't refute what happened. I don't refute he lied about it. I will refute whether that rose to the level of treason or other impeachable offense. His predecessor said "read my lips, no new taxes." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall impeachment hearings when he increased taxes?? That WAS a lie, wasn't it?

Notice the restraint....I'm not even mentioning the other guy....

Again, congrats on the pass.

His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.

david gibson

09-26-2010, 11:38 PM

His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.

and the broken record speaks AGAIN

must be really boring in your head

Clay Rogers

09-27-2010, 03:10 AM

His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.

As bad as that might have hurt your feelings, it wasn't against the law. Lying under Oath though is. See the difference.

Hew

09-27-2010, 04:57 AM

What Clinton did was an affront to our judicial system. He used his power, money and influence to conspire to deny an American citizen her most basic right...to have her grievance heard in a court of law. He lied under oath to cover his arse. He conspired with others to lie under oath to cover his arse.

Obama, I think, is basically a good and decent man with f'ed up political beliefs. His administration, while I don't agree with hardly any of them, is largely comprised of people who want what they think is best for the country (obviously not what I, or most Americans think). Clinton, on the other hand, was/is a low-class, two-bit grifter and user of other people. He didn't (and doesn't) care how many people he stepped on or over as long as it suited his prodigious ambitions. His administration was largely a thugocracy of other like-minded grifters who would say/do anything for a buck or more power.

YardleyLabs

09-27-2010, 07:44 AM

If I have to choose between a President who lies about his sex life or one who lies or otherwise breaks the law in the performance of his official duties, I'll go with lies about sex every time. When it comes to lying under oath, I am also a little more concerned about fulfilling the President's oath of office than about perjury in a trumped up trial financed as part of a conservative vendetta.

Unfortunately, we seem too willing to accept lying from our Presidents in their official capacity as long as we agree with their messages. The Bush administration systematically mislead the people to gain support for the Iraq invasion. It systematically flaunted the law in its treatment of captives and its implementation of surveillance activities. When overturned by the courts, it simply ignored the decisions. Those, in my mind, are actions that directly violate the Presidential oath of office and constitute crimes.

I don't consider Bush Sr's statements about taxes during the campaign to have been a crime in any way at all. It was a campaign promise that he could not keep without disastrous consequences. What he ended up doing was to honor his responsibilities as President and make a tough decision. It cost him his job, but that has to be a secondary consideration.

Reagan's deals in the Iran Contra affair clearly rose to the level of crimes in the performance of his official duties as President. Once again, these were much more serious than questions of sleeping around and lying about it. The Democrats clearly had the votes to push through an impeachment, but never considered it.

We have had three Presidential impeachments proceedings in our country's history: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. In two of the three, Johnson and Clinton, the circumstances were clearly charges that, while technically correct, were fabricated by a determined opposition to overturn an election. Only one, the impeachment of Nixon, was actually a case where a President clearly abused his office for criminal purposes on a systematic basis. All three of the impeachment proceedings have failed to result in a single conviction, with Nixon's being ended only by his resignation.

I suspect that the majority of our Presidents did things in office that could have been used as a technical basis for impeachment. If that becomes the norm whenever the President and Congress are at odds, our political system will collapse into civil war.

dnf777

09-27-2010, 07:52 AM

I don't consider Bush Sr's statements about taxes during the campaign to have been a crime in any way at all. It was a campaign promise that he could not keep without disastrous consequences. What he ended up doing was to honor his responsibilities as President and make a tough decision. It cost him his job, but that has to be a secondary consideration.
.

He did say "read my lips", which I suppose even under common law, fails to achieve "oath" status. Had he said "scouts honor" or "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye".....THEN it would have risen to high crimes status. :rolleyes:

But yes, he did look at the situation ahead, and made a responsible, yet unpopular decision. Oh, and by the way, perhaps coincidentally, we began the largest economic growth period in our nation's history, only to be followed by the largest reversal and contraction under his son's watch, some 14 years later.

road kill

09-27-2010, 07:56 AM

If I have to choose between a President who lies about his sex life or one who lies or otherwise breaks the law in the performance of his official duties, I'll go with lies about sex every time. When it comes to lying under oath, I am also a little more concerned about fulfilling the President's oath of office than about perjury in a trumped up trial financed as part of a conservative vendetta.

Unfortunately, we seem too willing to accept lying from our Presidents in their official capacity as long as we agree with their messages. The Bush administration systematically mislead the people to gain support for the Iraq invasion. It systematically flaunted the law in its treatment of captives and its implementation of surveillance activities. When overturned by the courts, it simply ignored the decisions. Those, in my mind, are actions that directly violate the Presidential oath of office and constitute crimes.

I don't consider Bush Sr's statements about taxes during the campaign to have been a crime in any way at all. It was a campaign promise that he could not keep without disastrous consequences. What he ended up doing was to honor his responsibilities as President and make a tough decision. It cost him his job, but that has to be a secondary consideration.

Reagan's deals in the Iran Contra affair clearly rose to the level of crimes in the performance of his official duties as President. Once again, these were much more serious than questions of sleeping around and lying about it. The Democrats clearly had the votes to push through an impeachment, but never considered it.

We have had three Presidential impeachments proceedings in our country's history: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. In two of the three, Johnson and Clinton, the circumstances were clearly charges that, while technically correct, were fabricated by a determined opposition to overturn an election. Only one, the impeachment of Nixon, was actually a case where a President clearly abused his office for criminal purposes on a systematic basis. All three of the impeachment proceedings have failed to result in a single conviction, with Nixon's being ended only by his resignation.

I suspect that the majority of our Presidents did things in office that could have been used as a technical basis for impeachment. If that becomes the norm whenever the President and Congress are at odds, our political system will collapse into civil war.
Do you understand there is a difference between a campaign promise and a court of law???

RK

Julie R.

09-27-2010, 09:56 AM

His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.

Exactly what is it about "under oath" that you have difficulty understanding? We'd like to help you out (which door did you come in?). About your first claim, above: the common belief on both sides of the aisle was that Iraq did, indeed have WMDs and it's the Congress--not the POTUS--that commits the country to war. Might be informative for you to look up that vote. As for the second allegation, you know this how? Links please? Ahh, just remembered, you don't bother fact checking, you'd rather open mouth/insert foot.

M&K's Retrievers

09-27-2010, 10:31 AM

Pete...You've got to get rid of that avatar, it's making my eyes water.
Walt[/QUOTE]

Man, I'll second that.;)

YardleyLabs

09-27-2010, 10:44 AM

Pete...You've got to get rid of that avatar, it's making my eyes water.
Walt

Man, I'll second that.;)
Make that a third. I mean, I know you are proud of your weight loss, but really.....:D

[To be fair, Pete is actually very thin. I have horrifying images of him lying under the person in his avatar. No one would ever know.]

Buzz

09-27-2010, 11:36 AM

Pete

Pete...You've got to get rid of that avatar, it's making my eyes water.
Walt[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking of putting him on the ignore list so I don't have to see that anymore.

ducknwork

09-27-2010, 11:57 AM

Pete...You've got to get rid of that avatar, it's making my eyes water.
Walt

Man, I'll second that.;)

You guys are so happy that you are tearing up?

I haven't done that since my last baby was born.

Whatever floats your boat regards,

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 12:39 PM

so you feel its perfectly acceptable for a president to get blowjobs in the oval office and then lie about it.

sadly, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

What married man would not lie about it? But for the Republicans to try to impeach him for it was too much for me. They tried 2 other times to impeach him but that did not work either.

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 12:42 PM

dont wad your panties up just yet dave, i have nothing else to say but what i just said. he lied under oath. period. how can it be good unless someone tries to claim he didnt lie under oath?

too tired after a long weekend of hunt tests and glowing with a master pass shine regards......

How many lives were lost over it. I suppose you condone all the lies the Bush administration handed out over his 8 years in office.

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 12:46 PM

and exactly what oath was Bush Sr. under at that time???? maybe i missed that part, but lying under oath is a criminal offense, a felony in fact. general political lies are expected - hell Obama tops the charts with all his transparency etc...... - its a simple word dave - OATH - that is the key difference.

thanks for the congrats. man these three series 2-day events are a lot different from jr and sr....but a lot more satisfying when you succeed.

we do have some creeping corrections to accomplish in the next 2 weeks though....

Bush 43 took an oath to uphold the Constitution then trampled all over the it.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

david gibson

09-27-2010, 12:49 PM

How many lives were lost over it. I suppose you condone all the lies the Bush administration handed out over his 8 years in office.

why dont you stick to the topic at hand - the issue is impeachable offense. bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony.

now, please tell me exactly how many lives were lost due to proven lies concocted and told directly by bush???

ps: wmd doesnt fit in that category so take the broken record off the turntable

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 12:55 PM

and the broken record speaks AGAIN

must be really boring in your head

Quote:
Originally Posted by depittydawg http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=681759#post681759)
His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.

and the broken record speaks AGAIN

must be really boring in your head

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

David this is from a source that you quoted, or did you not read your own article that you posted in another thread?

why dont you stick to the topic at hand - the issue is impeachable offense. bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony.

now, please tell me exactly how many lives were lost due to proven lies concocted and told directly by bush???

ps: wmd doesnt fit in that category so take the broken record off the turntable
The topic at hand was actually campaign dirty tricks, which makes the entire discussion of Clinton off topic. Of course, your definition of changing the subject is anything that points to Republican problems while you are busy point the finger at Democrats.:rolleyes:

You said that "bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony". For the record, Clinton was never convicted of a felony either. He was found in contempt of court and fned. The civil suit against him was dismissed for lack of evidence of damages. The charges against him in the Senate were dismissed by a majority of the Senate, although only a one-third vote against conviction was needed to dismiss the charges. So where's the felony?

david gibson

09-27-2010, 01:12 PM

The topic at hand was actually campaign dirty tricks, which makes the entire discussion of Clinton off topic. Of course, your definition of changing the subject is anything that points to Republican problems while you are busy point the finger at Democrats.:rolleyes:

You said that "bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony". For the record, Clinton was never convicted of a felony either. He was found in contempt of court and fned. The civil suit against him was dismissed for lack of evidence of damages. The charges against him in the Senate were dismissed by a majority of the Senate, although only a one-third vote against conviction was needed to dismiss the charges. So where's the felony?

same as oj - he committed it, but wasnt convicted of it. big difference there. the fact that he clearly committed the offense gives justification for further investigation and the impeachment process. that impeachment failed is one thing, but they clearly had good reason to bring the charge. so nothing to get bent out of shape about, your side one and you should be glad and move on. just because it failed doesnt mean they had no right to bring the charges in the first place - re OJ.

david gibson

09-27-2010, 01:19 PM

You have Lee Atwater and his disciple, Karl Rove to thank for perfecting this technique. Unfortunately, they also proved it very effective, and therefore, it's not going away anytime soon. Didn't you think your very own techniques would be used against you when the tables were turned? Same goes for filibusters and procedural loopholes. Neither side has exclusive claim to dirty politics.

so there was never any such thing as mudslinging before attwater and karl rove did it? dirty politics is the republicans tactic, and the dems are merely mimicking them?

about what i expect from you.... :rolleyes:

Cody Covey

09-27-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by depittydawg http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=681759#post681759)
His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.

and the broken record speaks AGAIN

must be really boring in your head

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

David this is from a source that you quoted, or did you not read your own article that you posted in another thread?

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/Did you read the quote that you put up in bold lettering? Where does it say Bush lied. It clearly states that they didn't find the mass stock piles that THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY put out about the wmd's. Its not like Bush was the one coming up with the intelligence on it. That is not the presidents job that is why we have the CIA and others in the intel community. ALL OF WHOM SAID THERE WERE WMD's IN IRAQ...

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 01:29 PM

David, I guess you think cover ups are not against the law either? Just because Congress did not persue any impeachable offenses against Bush 43 doesn't mean he did not commit any impeachable offenses.

Take the Pat Tillman case for example. Evidence now shows he was murdered by someone in his squadron from as little as 10 feet away from him I believe it was listed as "friendly fire". What did Bush 43 do? claimed Executive Previledge ----- a cover-up.

As it did after the Haditha massacre, the U.S. military covered up the real cause of Pat Tillman's death. After claiming he died in a heroic gun battle with the enemy, the administration was later compelled to admit Tillman died from "friendly-fire." When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed "all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President" relating to Tillman's death, Bush refused, claiming executive privilege. Again, a showdown is looming, this time over documents.
Chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Committee Republican Tom Davis wrote a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, which said: "The Committee hearing [on Tillman's death] ... raised questions about whether the administration has been providing accurate information to Congress and the American people about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

There are many more examples of Bush 43 cover-ups also. Here is a link.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

M&K's Retrievers

09-27-2010, 01:40 PM

David, I guess you think cover ups are not against the law either? Just because Congress did not persue any impeachable offenses against Bush 43 doesn't mean he did not commit any impeachable offenses.

Take the Pat Tillman case for example. Evidence now shows he was murdered by someone in his squadron from as little as 10 feet away from him I believe it was listed as "friendly fire". What did Bush 43 do? claimed Executive Previledge ----- a cover-up.

As it did after the Haditha massacre, the U.S. military covered up the real cause of Pat Tillman's death. After claiming he died in a heroic gun battle with the enemy, the administration was later compelled to admit Tillman died from "friendly-fire." When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed "all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President" relating to Tillman's death, Bush refused, claiming executive privilege. Again, a showdown is looming, this time over documents.
Chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Committee Republican Tom Davis wrote a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, which said: "The Committee hearing [on Tillman's death] ... raised questions about whether the administration has been providing accurate information to Congress and the American people about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

There are many more examples of Bush 43 cover-ups also. Here is a link.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/
What's with the bold type for crying out loud?:confused:

road kill

09-27-2010, 01:41 PM

What's with the bold type for crying out loud?:confused:
He is shouting at you in caseyou couldn't hear him!!!

RK

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 01:47 PM

Did you read the quote that you put up in bold lettering? Where does it say Bush lied. It clearly states that they didn't find the mass stock piles that THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY put out about the wmd's. Its not like Bush was the one coming up with the intelligence on it. That is not the presidents job that is why we have the CIA and others in the intel community. ALL OF WHOM SAID THERE WERE WMD's IN IRAQ...

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War), the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCOM) located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-0) In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCOM), the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAEA) inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox). The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-1) under UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441), which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-2)
During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix) had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441). He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-3) The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-6) Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-7) President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War),[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-8) despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-9) and questions of integrity[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-12) about the underlying intelligence.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-13) Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs,
while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Need any more references?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 01:50 PM

He is shouting at you!!!

RK

Hot hollaring, If I was it would be in all capital letters. Just stressing certain talking points.

dnf777

09-27-2010, 01:51 PM

Lets not even go to the Pat Tillman case. That was such a disgrace to our government and military. The commanders that botched that have STILL not admitted wrong doing, and are continuing the cover up and lies.

I read "Where Men Win Glory" and was literally sick to my stomach at several points in that book.

Talk about an American Hero. Pat Tillman should have statues of himself all over the country.

He has a very worthwhile charity, organized by his mother and widow. I encourage everyone to take a look, and consider an offering to a worthy cause.

http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/

M&K's Retrievers

09-27-2010, 01:58 PM

Hot hollaring, If I was it would be in all capital letters. Just stressing certain talking points.

I think bold type would be sufficient.

david gibson

09-27-2010, 02:08 PM

Did you read the quote that you put up in bold lettering? Where does it say Bush lied. It clearly states that they didn't find the mass stock piles that THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY put out about the wmd's. Its not like Bush was the one coming up with the intelligence on it. That is not the presidents job that is why we have the CIA and others in the intel community. ALL OF WHOM SAID THERE WERE WMD's IN IRAQ...

not only that, most all democrats including kerry and the clintons were all in agreement until it became politically feasible to go against bush on the issue.

david gibson

09-27-2010, 02:16 PM

David, I guess you think cover ups are not against the law either? Just because Congress did not persue any impeachable offenses against Bush 43 doesn't mean he did not commit any impeachable offenses.

There are many more examples of Bush 43 cover-ups also. Here is a link.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

there are just as many if not more cover ups of the clintons. here's one:

clinton lied under oath and was caught, but acquitted in due legal process just like oj. point clinton. but it was clearly justifiable to bring the charges, and thats been the whole topic since tardley made his comment about holding a grudge forever because impeachment proceedings were brought up. they were not trumped up charges, he lied under oath, bush did no such thing so any comparisons you try to make about bush committing impeachable offenses are pointless.

forget the wmd, your assertions of him lying about that are baseless. no more than he planned 9/11 himself - though i am quite certain you believe that too.

i am buying more stock in Alcoa, you keep the demand high!

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 02:22 PM

there are just as many if not more cover ups of the clintons. here's one:

clinton lied under oath and was caught, but acquitted in due legal process just like oj. point clinton. but it was clearly justifiable to bring the charges, and thats been the whole topic since tardley made his comment about holding a grudge forever because impeachment proceedings were brought up. they were not trumped up charges, he lied under oath, bush did no such thing so any comparisons you try to make about bush committing impeachable offenses are pointless.

forget the wmd, your assertions of him lying about that are baseless. no more than he planned 9/11 himself - though i am quite certain you believe that too.

i am buying more stock in Alcoa, you keep the demand high!

I guess your finger hit the wrong button again the "t" is right next to the y button.

David, you will never convince me that Bush really believed there were WMD in Iraq for the reason we went to war against Iraq to feed his own ego any more than you will convince me that Bush was not lying.

Bush 43 made General Colin Powell look like a fool, Why else would General Powell resign?

Buzz

09-27-2010, 02:32 PM

I guess your finger hit the wrong button again the "t" is right next to the y button.

David, you will never convince me that Bush really believed there were WMD in Iraq for the reason we went to war against Iraq to feed his own ego any more than you will convince me that Bush was not lying.

Bush 43 made General Colin Powell look like a fool, Why else would General Powell resign?

We went to Iraq so that the Bushs could settle a grudge against Hussain.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons -- in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, ''After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad.''

david gibson

09-27-2010, 02:32 PM

I guess your finger hit the wrong button again the "t" is right next to the y button.

David, you will never convince me that Bush really believed there were WMD in Iraq for the reason we went to war against Iraq to feed his own ego any more than you will convince me that Bush was not lying.

Bush 43 made General Colin Powell look like a fool, Why else would General Powell resign?

i know i'll never convince you, you have a one track mind and one set of facts that you continuously spew with no solid factual evidence to ever back it up. the best you can do is make the font 2 times larger and bold it. i have to admit, you are the best at that!

so tell me, was 9/11 bush's idea, or was he just doing what cheney told him to do??

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 03:09 PM

i know i'll never convince you, you have a one track mind and one set of facts that you continuously spew with no solid factual evidence to ever back it up. the best you can do is make the font 2 times larger and bold it. i have to admit, you are the best at that!

so tell me, was 9/11 bush's idea, or was he just doing what cheney told him to do??

No, I do not believe 9/11 was Bush's idea. I do belive on August 6th, 2001 he was briefed by the CIA about a possibility of an impending attack and never followed through with the information.

Hew

09-27-2010, 03:41 PM

We went to Iraq so that the Bushs could settle a grudge against Hussain.
Gee, I hope this is just another one of your "reflexive" posts to counter all the nasty rightwing rhetoric here and that you don't actually believe that nonsense.

M&K's Retrievers

09-27-2010, 03:58 PM

We went to Iraq so that the Bushs could settle a grudge against Hussain.

Boy, that Bush was one powerful sum biaotch.

dnf777

09-27-2010, 03:59 PM

Gee, I hope this is just another one of your "reflexive" posts to counter all the nasty rightwing rhetoric here and that you don't actually believe that nonsense.

Just curious...now that we're many years into it, Bush is retired.....why do YOU think we went to Iraq? WMDs? Topple tyranny? Stabilize region? Clean out old munitions inventory? I honestly do not know. I do know that the evidence that has surfaced in the years following the invasion casts serious doubt on all the reasons originally offered.

Hew

09-27-2010, 04:11 PM

Just curious...now that we're many years into it, Bush is retired.....why do YOU think we went to Iraq? WMDs? Topple tyranny? Stabilize region? Clean out old munitions inventory? I honestly do not know. I do know that the evidence that has surfaced in the years following the invasion casts serious doubt on all the reasons originally offered.
A myriad of reasons were given, and considered within the context of 9/11 all of them were valid collectively or individually. Remove 9/11 from the mix and Saddam Hussein is still gassing Kurds and feeding people into plastic shredders today. Being a sh!t disturbing, murderous tyrant who had previously used WMDs and claimed he currently had WMDs was not a careful and well thought-out profession to be in with 3,000 Americans having just been reduced to rubble and ashes. Or we can be like Buzz and think that it was all about revenge. The more I think about that, the more insipid it sounds. :rolleyes: x 50

The years following WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. indicated numbers of ways in which those wars could have been avoided or were folly. That's the beauty of hindsight...it's always 20/20.

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 04:20 PM

why dont you stick to the topic at hand - the issue is impeachable offense. bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony.

now, please tell me exactly how many lives were lost due to proven lies concocted and told directly by bush???

ps: wmd doesnt fit in that category so take the broken record off the turntable

Bush took the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which he did not do therefore he lied under oath.

Bush committed many impeachable offenses but the Democrats did not stoop to the level of the Republicans and go after him.

http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm

road kill

09-27-2010, 04:25 PM

Bush took the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which he did not do therefore he lied under oath.

Bush committed many impeachable offenses but the Democrats did not stoop to the level of the Republicans and go after him.

http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm

Roger, you didn't really just post that link as evidence Bush lied, did you??:shock:

Drunkin' old man regards,

RK

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 04:30 PM

A myriad of reasons were given, and considered within the context of 9/11 all of them were valid collectively or individually. Remove 9/11 from the mix and Saddam Hussein is still gassing Kurds and feeding people into plastic shredders today. Being a sh!t disturbing, murderous tyrant who had previously used WMDs and claimed he currently had WMDs was not a careful and well thought-out profession to be in with 3,000 Americans having just been reduced to rubble and ashes. Or we can be like Buzz and think that it was all about revenge. The more I think about that, the more insipid it sounds. :rolleyes: x 50

The years following WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. indicated numbers of ways in which those wars could have been avoided or were folly. That's the beauty of hindsight...it's always 20/20.

There is no doubt at all that Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988. No one is doubting that. But compare the 5,000 Kurds that Saddam killed to the hundredsof thousands of Iraqi citizens that Bush was responsible for killing and that number pales in comparison.

Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?Reality Checks Needed During War

No doubt, Saddam has mistreated Kurds during his rule. But it's misleading to say, so simply and without context, that he killed his own people by gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja.
Other Articles Related To This Topic (http://64.176.94.191/cgi-bin/webglimpse/home/informat/informationclearinghouse-www?query=gas)

by Don Sellar
March 1, 2003 by the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/)
Halabja (pop. 80,000) is a small Kurdish city in northern Iraq. On Wednesday, the Star reminded readers that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army killed 5,000 Kurds in a 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja near the end of a bloody, eight-year war with Iran. The statement that Saddam was responsible for gassing the Kurds — his own people — was straightforward.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

david gibson

09-27-2010, 04:45 PM

Bush took the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which he did not do therefore he lied under oath.

Bush committed many impeachable offenses but the Democrats did not stoop to the level of the Republicans and go after him. oh please, those mighty, so perfect and honorable democrats felt so sorry and had such brotherly love for Bush they just couldnt bear to be mean to him, could they???

http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm

you must live a sad, painful life since that is all that swims through yopur brain all day. harboring all those thoughts and seething hateful; feelings is really, really sad.

please tell me exactly where the constitution was attacked and he failed to defend or protect it? this is from wiki, but i have read others with the same conclusion:

"Although the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. (notice only one of these is Bush 43's war, but they were all entered into similarly))The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War. In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Julie R.

09-27-2010, 04:49 PM

Roger, you didn't really just post that link as evidence Bush lied, did you??:shock:

And Pssst...Hey ROGER
We know you hate George Bush and guess what... most of us think it's really a cover-up for the secret man-crush you have on him. http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/00dbb7fa.gif

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 04:50 PM

Roger, you didn't really just post that link as evidence Bush lied, did you??:shock:

Drunkin' old man regards,

RK

Yeah, your party can do no wrong.:rolleyes:

david gibson

09-27-2010, 04:53 PM

Bush took the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which he did not do therefore he lied under oath.

Bush committed many impeachable offenses but the Democrats did not stoop to the level of the Republicans and go after him.

http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm

dude, there is just one word for you: KOOK

this serendippity website is a piece of work. its a blog, just a blog. written by one guy, and you want to base your life on it.

funny, the author states:
"The author of this website, Peter Meyer, was raised by poor but honest working class parents. The most liberating teaching he received (from his father, while still a child) was: "You don't have to depend on what others say — you can think for yourself and make up your own mind." He also remembers a saying: "If you can't beat the System at least you can go down spitting in its eye.""

thats so ironic its comical. here you are depending on everything this guy says.....

you are the only person i would consider putting on ignore, not because you make me mad or get my goat, but for the simple reason that, well - you are a kook, and i just dont need such kookery in my life.

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 04:56 PM

you must live a sad, painful life since that is all that swims through yopur brain all day. harboring all those thoughts and seething hateful; feelings is really, really sad.

please tell me exactly where the constitution was attacked and he failed to defend or protect it? this is from wiki, but i have read others with the same conclusion:

"Although the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. (notice only one of these is Bush 43's war, but they were all entered into similarly))The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War. In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Yeah, Bush 43 received Congressional approval because he lied. I believed him when he said Iraq had WMD and so did Congress. If he had told the truth, the U.S. Congress would never have approved of going to war with Iraq.

As far as hateful feelings go, it does not compare to your haterid of Obama and the Democrats even though it was a Republican President that put our Country in the shape that it is in today.

road kill

09-27-2010, 05:06 PM

Yeah, Bush 43 received Congressional approval because he lied. I believed him when he said Iraq had WMD and so did Congress. If he had told the truth, the U.S. Congress would never have approved of going to war with Iraq.

As far as hateful feelings go, it does not compare to your haterid of Obama and the Democrats even though it was a Republican President that put our Country in the shape that it is in today.

Roger, take a moment and reveiw this site, I think it will help!!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

RK

Roger Perry

09-27-2010, 05:19 PM

Roger, take a moment and reveiw this site, I think it will help!!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

RK

Stan, what does the bulding of a Mosque near ground zero have to do with why we attacked Iraq? Iraq did not send the terrorists to fly into the World Trade Center and Iraq did not have any al Quida until after we invaded their country. I certainly do not believe the Mosque should be built there, but our Constitution protects Freedom of Religion. The Constitution does not state only Christianty will be protected by the Constitution but it states Religion will be protected. Maybe you should get an ammendment to the Constitution started that the Muslim religion is excluded.

road kill

09-27-2010, 05:21 PM

Stan, what does the bulding of a Mosque near ground zero have to do with why we attacked Iraq? Iraq did not send the terrorists to fly into the World Trade Center and Iraq did not have any al Quida until after we invaded their country. I certainly do not believe the Mosque should be built there, but our Constitution protects Freedom of Religion. The Constitution does not state only Christianty will be protected by the Constitution but it states Religion will be protected. Maybe you should get an ammendment to the Constitution started that the Muslim religion is excluded.
I wanted you to read the whole "Atlas Shrugs" blog.

I know the Yardley Twins do!!:D

(OK, maybe not.....)

RK

Clay Rogers

09-27-2010, 07:03 PM

David, I guess you think cover ups are not against the law either? Just because Congress did not persue any impeachable offenses against Bush 43 doesn't mean he did not commit any impeachable offenses.

Take the Pat Tillman case for example. Evidence now shows he was murdered by someone in his squadron from as little as 10 feet away from him I believe it was listed as "friendly fire". What did Bush 43 do? claimed Executive Previledge ----- a cover-up.

As it did after the Haditha massacre, the U.S. military covered up the real cause of Pat Tillman's death. After claiming he died in a heroic gun battle with the enemy, the administration was later compelled to admit Tillman died from "friendly-fire." When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed "all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President" relating to Tillman's death, Bush refused, claiming executive privilege. Again, a showdown is looming, this time over documents.
Chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Committee Republican Tom Davis wrote a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, which said: "The Committee hearing [on Tillman's death] ... raised questions about whether the administration has been providing accurate information to Congress and the American people about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

There are many more examples of Bush 43 cover-ups also. Here is a link.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Dude, I am just glad you live 10 hours away from me. You should be too. To say that one Ranger murdered another while in a firefight pisses me off. That just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. People die in WAR PERIOD!!!!!!!!! Does it suck, hell yea. Do you wish you can change it, hell yea. Do you carry own with the mission, you damn right. Were they wrong to cover it up, absolutely. But don't say he was murdered. If you have no proof that is what happened, isn't that slander? Didn't YOU threaten to sue someone on here for that? SHUT UP!

david gibson

09-27-2010, 07:23 PM

Dude, I am just glad you live 10 hours away from me. You should be too. To say that one Ranger murdered another while in a firefight pisses me off. That just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. People die in WAR PERIOD!!!!!!!!! Does it suck, hell yea. Do you wish you can change it, hell yea. Do you carry own with the mission, you damn right. Were they wrong to cover it up, absolutely. But don't say he was murdered. If you have no proof that is what happened, isn't that slander? Didn't YOU threaten to sue someone on here for that? SHUT UP!

the guy is just a flippin' KOOK, hands down. i have him on mental ignore

dnf777

09-27-2010, 08:12 PM

Dude, I am just glad you live 10 hours away from me. You should be too. To say that one Ranger murdered another while in a firefight pisses me off. That just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. People die in WAR PERIOD!!!!!!!!! Does it suck, hell yea. Do you wish you can change it, hell yea. Do you carry own with the mission, you damn right. Were they wrong to cover it up, absolutely. But don't say he was murdered. If you have no proof that is what happened, isn't that slander? Didn't YOU threaten to sue someone on here for that? SHUT UP!

Yeah, "murder" is a poor choice of words. Fratricide is an unfortunate occurrence, that despite the best precautions, will still happen. The disgrace occured when the administration and high ranking brass did indeed cover up the circumstances surrounding his death, to the point of making his battle buddies who accompanied the body back home with his brother, lie to him about how his brother died.

Murder......no.

Disgraceful cover up to protect the "image" of the war....absolutely.

I highly recommend the book "Where Men Win Glory". If you choose to read it, I suggest a bucket. What transpired after his death, and the way his family was disrespected and lied to, will make you SICK.

depittydawg

09-27-2010, 08:51 PM

Just curious...now that we're many years into it, Bush is retired.....why do YOU think we went to Iraq? WMDs? Topple tyranny? Stabilize region? Clean out old munitions inventory? I honestly do not know. I do know that the evidence that has surfaced in the years following the invasion casts serious doubt on all the reasons originally offered.

The evidence is pretty clear at this point. The only consistency throughout the entire war as administered by the Bush / Cheney cabal was the looting of the US treasury. No bid contracts. Billions in cash 'lost'. Screw up after screw up for how many years? Final tab, what two trillion? Where did most of that money go to? Haliburton, and other special interests connected to the Bushes.

YardleyLabs

09-27-2010, 08:53 PM

Gee, I hope this is just another one of your "reflexive" posts to counter all the nasty rightwing rhetoric here and that you don't actually believe that nonsense.
Presumably you are aware that the bill authorizing military action specifically noted Iraq support of an assassination attempt against GHWB in 1993 ("by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush"). The "grudge" was one of the explicit justifications for the war and was cited by former members of the administration as an issue discussed well before 9/11 as a reason for beginning to plan for an invasion.

depittydawg

09-27-2010, 08:54 PM

the guy is just a flippin' KOOK, hands down. i have him on mental ignore

Read the posts again. Who's the kooks? I'd say it's the people who bully, threaten, and otherwise carry on like children when confronted with opinions they disagree with.

Hew

09-28-2010, 02:52 AM

Presumably you are aware that the bill authorizing military action specifically noted Iraq support of an assassination attempt against GHWB in 1993 ("by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush"). Surely I am. The context is that anyone who is crazy enough to try to assassinate a former president is therefore crazy enough to invade neighbors, harbor WMDs, sell WMDs, use WMDs and is therefore a dangerous threat to our security. The "grudge" was one of the explicit justifications for the war and was cited by former members of the administration as an issue discussed well before 9/11 as a reason for beginning to plan for an invasion. Again, the discussion of Hussein's attempt on HW Bush's life was in the context of "look how f***ing crazy that SOB is," and not, "we've gotta teach that boy a dadgum lesson that you don't mess with the US of A!" Supposing that W Bush was all about vendettas against those who'd done his daddy wrong then soon after his swearing in he would have first arrested Clinton and his rabble of sychopants and enablers and then invaded the NY Times, WA Post, CBS and ABC News rooms and frog marched their editors off to jail.

Further supposing that Bush did wage war on Iraq because of the attempt on his dad's life then he'd be following the policy of your's and Buzz's hero, Billy Jeff Clinton....who lobbed two dozen cruise missles at Iraq and claimed it was in response to Saddam's try on Bush the Elder's life. But that's a lot of crazy supposing (and just plain ol crazy) that would go into Buzz' claim that the Iraq war was just a Bush grudge.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

dnf777

09-28-2010, 06:00 AM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Stop! Stop! I'm getting dizzy!

That takes the Olympic Gold Medal in the mens freestyle spinning competition!

Hew

09-28-2010, 06:19 AM

Stop! Stop! I'm getting dizzy!

That takes the Olympic Gold Medal in the mens freestyle spinning competition!
LOL. More of your unique "baffle 'em with volume" strategery? You're really not very good at this whole interweb thing.

Clay Rogers

09-28-2010, 07:05 AM

The evidence is pretty clear at this point. The only consistency throughout the entire war as administered by the Bush / Cheney cabal was the looting of the US treasury. No bid contracts. Billions in cash 'lost'. Screw up after screw up for how many years? Final tab, what two trillion? Where did most of that money go to? Haliburton, and other special interests connected to the Bushes.

So, your saying your pissed at Bush for spending 2 trillion over eight years in office and I haven't heard you say a word about the amount of money Obama has spent in just 20 months. Hasn't he already tripled that amount? Mind you, I am not as well versed in the BS as you and your cohorts, so I may be wrong.

Clay Rogers

09-28-2010, 07:07 AM

Read the posts again. Who's the kooks? I'd say it's the people who bully, threaten, and otherwise carry on like children when confronted with opinions they disagree with.

You guys may not be KooKs, but when you make broad statements like someone being "murdered" in combat, I think you should be called out. Especially if you never wore the uniform.

road kill

09-28-2010, 07:09 AM

You guys may not be KooKs, but when you make broad statements like someone being "murdered" in combat, I think you should be called out. Especially if you never wore the uniform.
Many here wore the uniform, but did not endure what you did.

Thanks again and welcome home!

RK

cotts135

09-28-2010, 07:51 AM

Surely you jest? Have these Republicans somehow convinced you that they will NOT VOTE THE PARTY line as instructed in the future? If indeed they have I encourage you to monitor their voting performance after the election and see if you've been had again.
Unfortunately I think most of us are being had. When the government is truly for the people and by the people than maybe we have a chance.The way it stands now with Corporate interests influencing politicians with their huge war chest of cash the middle class guy has almost no chance of succeeding
Big oil, Insurance companies,Wall Street banks, Pharmaceutical companies are basically the drivers of what happen in this country.
Just yesterday I heard a report where the Republicans are now trying to block an investigation that has supoena power to find out what really happened in the Gulf oil spill. I mean for what good reason would they do this? I am sure they will come out and say something that is like a half truth and that the public will swallow whole, but you have to hope that most people will see it for what it is and that is to protect Big oil from something that is either damaging or embarrasing to their companies.
You can believe that the lobbyists are working hard to limit the damages that may come from the findings of this committee.
This behavior is not just unique to the Republicans, the Democrats also do the same when the feel something embarrassing or harmful comes out about their biggest contributors.

Clay Rogers

09-28-2010, 08:03 AM

Many here wore the uniform, but did not endure what you did.

Thanks again and welcome home!

RK

RK, this isn't about me, but thanks.
It's about a man(I guess) speaking something he apparently knows nothing about. Plenty of people that don't train retrievers or hunt view these websites all the time, looking for anything they can use, don't you think? Roger has no business saying Tillman was murdered unless he was there, in the heat of the firefight and saw it first hand, knew it was being planned and took part in it. My point is good men die everyday, men just like Tillman, that came from everyday walks of life. You know, it's a shame that we place Tillman on a pedestal because he gave up a promising career in football to become a soldier, who happened to die in the line of duty. That shouldn't be an act of heroism, that should be the norm. The only reason the Tillman case stands out is because of who he was before he became a soldier and that in it self is wrong. What about the other 4,403 soldiers that have given their life? How about the 12 or so Marines that were killed by friendly fire in the first gulf war? Don't hear much about them, they must not have mattered huh?:rolleyes:

road kill

09-28-2010, 08:14 AM

RK, this isn't about me, but thanks.
It's about a man(I guess) speaking something he apparently knows nothing about. Plenty of people that don't train retrievers or hunt view these websites all the time, looking for anything they can use, don't you think? Roger has no business saying Tillman was murdered unless he was there, in the heat of the firefight and saw it first hand, knew it was being planned and took part in it. My point is good men die everyday, men just like Tillman, that came from everyday walks of life. You know, it's a shame that we place Tillman on a pedestal because he gave up a promising career in football to become a soldier, who happened to die in the line of duty. That shouldn't be an act of heroism, that should be the norm. The only reason the Tillman case stands out is because of who he was before he became a soldier and that in it self is wrong. What about the other 4,403 soldiers that have given their life? How about the 12 or so Marines that were killed by friendly fire in the first gulf war? Don't hear much about them, they must not have mattered huh?:rolleyes:

There are a number of progressives that post here.
RP claiming Tillman was murdered is absurd, but pales in comparison to some of the other claims made by these guys.
Not too long ago one of them claimed God "murdered" 10's of thousands.
That's when I realized exactly what these guys are about.
I was the only one who stood up to that charge, much as you are here.
Except you got me watching your back, good or bad as that is.

These guys hate the USA and all things related, especially the US military.......but when terrorists kill, it's our fault and they are peace loving people.

Get it??

Keep on keepin' on........

RK

Clay Rogers

09-28-2010, 08:21 AM

There are a number of progressives that post here.
RP claiming Tillman was murdered is absurd, but pales in comparison to some of the other claims made by these guys.
Not too long ago one of them claimed God "murdered" 10's of thousands.
That's when I realized exactly what these guys are about.
I was the only one who stood up to that charge, much as you are here.
Except you got me watching your back, good or bad as that is.

These guys hate the USA and all things related, especially the US military.......but when terrorists kill, it's our fault and they are peace loving people.

Get it??

Keep on keepin' on........

RK

It always helps to have a good "six". Thanks.

david gibson

09-28-2010, 08:25 AM

Read the posts again. Who's the kooks? I'd say it's the people who bully, threaten, and otherwise carry on like children when confronted with opinions they disagree with.[

so a differing opinion is bullying? where are the threats? please show me all these threats. you are on the clock.

its not that we just disagree, but when you take crap from places like "serendipity.in" and post it as truth you are going to get hammered.

you must have one helluva supply of tin foil

Roger Perry

09-29-2010, 10:19 AM

Dude, I am just glad you live 10 hours away from me. You should be too. To say that one Ranger murdered another while in a firefight pisses me off. That just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. People die in WAR PERIOD!!!!!!!!! Does it suck, hell yea. Do you wish you can change it, hell yea. Do you carry own with the mission, you damn right. Were they wrong to cover it up, absolutely. But don't say he was murdered. If you have no proof that is what happened, isn't that slander? Didn't YOU threaten to sue someone on here for that? SHUT UP!

Three shots to the forehead from less than 10 yards? I could accept one shot to the forehead as an accicent, but three? Somewhat suspicous don't you think? Why did the Bush administration claim executive previledge over the death of one soldier and not any of the 4,000 others that died in combat?

updated 7/27/2007 8:21:05 PM ET

Share (name@address.com?subject=Share%20this%20story)
Print (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19984732/#)
Font:
+
-SAN FRANCISCO — Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman’s comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman’s death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.
Shedding light on tragedy
The medical examiners’ suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Among other information contained in the documents:

In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.
No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman’s death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.
Hearing, punishments prepared
With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19984732/

M&K's Retrievers

09-29-2010, 10:41 AM

:

In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.
No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
[.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19984732/

Hmmmm. Can't be both ways can it?

Oops regards,

Clay Rogers

09-29-2010, 10:47 AM

Three shots to the forehead from less than 10 yards? I could accept one shot to the forehead as an accicent, but three? Somewhat suspicous don't you think? Why did the Bush administration claim executive previledge over the death of one soldier and not any of the 4,000 others that died in combat?

updated 7/27/2007 8:21:05 PM ET

Share (name@address.com?subject=Share%20this%20story)
Print (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19984732/#)
Font:
+
-SAN FRANCISCO — Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman’s comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman’s death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.
Shedding light on tragedy
The medical examiners’ suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Among other information contained in the documents:

In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.
No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman’s death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.
Hearing, punishments prepared
With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19984732/

Ok, great and powerful OZ, why would Bush want to cover up Tillmans death if someone had killed him on purpose? That would not make Bush look bad, that would make the person who did it look bad. Bush had no gain from keeping this quiet, none at all. So, if you can explain that to me, using logic and facts, not your absurd hate for the man, do it.

And who's last words anyway?

And by the way, an M-16 A3 fires a three round burst, just so you know.

dnf777

09-29-2010, 10:47 AM

Hmmmm. Can't be both ways can it?

Oops regards,

I don't understand your comment, unless you are being sardonic. They thought they were engaged by enemy fire. There was no evidence of that upon the investigation. If you're truly interested, I highly recommend the book, rather than internet snippets as a source of information.

Roger Perry

09-29-2010, 10:51 AM

Hmmmm. Can't be both ways can it?

Oops regards,

I would be interested in hearing from all the right wingers here. If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican and had done the things he did in office, would you still have stood up for him or attacked him like you are now attacking Obama? I would like to hear some honest answers.

Roger Perry

09-29-2010, 11:24 AM

I would be interested in hearing from all the right wingers here. If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican and had done the things he did in office, would you still have stood up for him or attacked him like you are now attacking Obama? I would like to hear some honest answers.

Ok, great and powerful OZ, why would Bush want to cover up Tillmans death if someone had killed him on purpose? That would not make Bush look bad, that would make the person who did it look bad. Bush had no gain from keeping this quiet, none at all. So, if you can explain that to me, using logic and facts, not your absurd hate for the man, do it.

And who's last words anyway?

And by the way, an M-16 A3 fires a three round burst, just so you know.

Then why did Bush pick this one incident to claim Executive Priviledge? Can you explain that? Oh, and by the way, I was in the Navy not the Army so I do not have first hand knowledge of the M-16. I used my gun not my rifle while in the Navy.

M&K's Retrievers

09-29-2010, 11:36 AM

I would be interested in hearing from all the right wingers here. If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican and had done the things he did in office, would you still have stood up for him or attacked him like you are now attacking Obama? I would like to hear some honest answers.

List the things Bush did please all of them good and bad.

ducknwork

09-29-2010, 11:54 AM

I would be interested in hearing from all the right wingers here. If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican and had done the things he did in office, would you still have stood up for him or attacked him like you are now attacking Obama? I would like to hear some honest answers.

Why don't you give everyone more than 33 minutes to respond before you get all excited and attempt to gloat because you think we are 'chicken'? Hmm. Maybe some of us were working or training our dogs or taking a dump (any of which out rank attempting to conversate with you) during that 33 minutes while you were clicking the refresh button every 10 seconds to see if someone had responded to you.

Here's an idea for you. Why don't you start another thread and ask the same question? But instead of saying
had done the things he did in office, give specific examples and we'll go one by one and answer you. You might just be surprised. After all, if you have been paying attention (doubtful), you would realize that there are very few, if any, who are 100% happy with everything Bush did. I can't tell you this though--I was 100% happier when Obama wasn't the president.

You must be the biggest chicken ever. It's been 24 minutes and I still don't see a new thread from you.

Clay Rogers

09-29-2010, 12:52 PM

I would be interested in hearing from all the right wingers here. If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican and had done the things he did in office, would you still have stood up for him or attacked him like you are now attacking Obama? I would like to hear some honest answers.

You wanna know why I dislike Obama? I will tell you why. First, I stand for nothing he stands for. I believe you should earn what you get, not be given it. I believe if you have the good fortune of becoming rich, you shouldn't have to share it with me. I also believe that the government was set up for the people(majority) and should be run according. Every bill he has ran through, the majority of people didn't like and still don't. I believe he should produce his birth certificate if he has nothing to hide. He is sorta pulling a Bush by not, huh? Kinda like Executive privilege.

And he ran on all this change crap. He was gonna post all bills for 3-5 days for everyone to view prior to voting on it. He was gonna broadcast all debates in congress on CSPAN, he was gonna cut wasteful spending and yada, yada, yada. You remember all that? You should, there are plenty of internet sites that you can search and find it. And you love to do that.

And I know, Bush did it too. But your man was gonna changes things remember? And I am tired of all this Bush did this and Bush did that, Bush left me with this and Bush left me with that. Last time I checked, you weren't drafted to be president, so he chose to be president. So suck it up, take the heat, ruck up and carry on.

pat addis

09-29-2010, 01:04 PM

If I have to choose between a President who lies about his sex life or one who lies or otherwise breaks the law in the performance of his official duties, I'll go with lies about sex every time. When it comes to lying under oath, I am also a little more concerned about fulfilling the President's oath of office than about perjury in a trumped up trial financed as part of a conservative vendetta.

Unfortunately, we seem too willing to accept lying from our Presidents in their official capacity as long as we agree with their messages. The Bush administration systematically mislead the people to gain support for the Iraq invasion. It systematically flaunted the law in its treatment of captives and its implementation of surveillance activities. When overturned by the courts, it simply ignored the decisions. Those, in my mind, are actions that directly violate the Presidential oath of office and constitute crimes.

I don't consider Bush Sr's statements about taxes during the campaign to have been a crime in any way at all. It was a campaign promise that he could not keep without disastrous consequences. What he ended up doing was to honor his responsibilities as President and make a tough decision. It cost him his job, but that has to be a secondary consideration.

Reagan's deals in the Iran Contra affair clearly rose to the level of crimes in the performance of his official duties as President. Once again, these were much more serious than questions of sleeping around and lying about it. The Democrats clearly had the votes to push through an impeachment, but never considered it.

We have had three Presidential impeachments proceedings in our country's history: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. In two of the three, Johnson and Clinton, the circumstances were clearly charges that, while technically correct, were fabricated by a determined opposition to overturn an election. Only one, the impeachment of Nixon, was actually a case where a President clearly abused his office for criminal purposes on a systematic basis. All three of the impeachment proceedings have failed to result in a single conviction, with Nixon's being ended only by his resignation.

I suspect that the majority of our Presidents did things in office that could have been used as a technical basis for impeachment. If that becomes the norm whenever the President and Congress are at odds, our political system will collapse into civil war.

help me out if i remember right nixon was never impeached was he? i just looked it up and he was not impeached,please look it up yourself if you think i'm wrong

david gibson

09-29-2010, 02:08 PM

I don't understand your comment, unless you are being sardonic. They thought they were engaged by enemy fire. There was no evidence of that upon the investigation. If you're truly interested, I highly recommend the book, rather than internet snippets as a source of information.

the comment:
"In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”

says under fire, it does not say "a panicky comrade thinking he was under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling."

and how do you "think" you are under fire? you either hear lead and shrapnel and explosions all around you or you dont. bullets 1 and 4 in that post dont pass the smell test, sorry.

dnf777

09-29-2010, 06:46 PM

the comment:
"In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”

says under fire, it does not say "a panicky comrade thinking he was under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling."

and how do you "think" you are under fire? you either hear lead and shrapnel and explosions all around you or you dont. bullets 1 and 4 in that post dont pass the smell test, sorry.

OMG you are dense!!

Don't you understand they were being fired upon by their own squad who didn't recongnize them???

"no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck."

oh, ok. i didnt realize that just by looking at a bullet hole in a truck or a body you can immediately tell if it was from the good or bad guys....:rolleyes:

i am not going to read the book right this minute. my point is the post is very poorly worded. so, tillman was chiding a fellow soldier for being a sniveller because they were under friendly fire. "quit snivelling, thats not enemy bullets hitting all around you, its our own guys. no problem" yeah, that makes it all better.

must you always be such a - well, i cant say it because you will then accuse me again of mocking your profession....:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs

09-29-2010, 07:39 PM

help me out if i remember right nixon was never impeached was he? i just looked it up and he was not impeached,please look it up yourself if you think i'm wrong
If you notice, I said impeachment proceedings. Nixon resigned well into House impeachment hearings when it became obvious that he would be both charged by the House and convicted by the Senate if he remained in office. The pressure for his resignation came from members of his own party. In the other two cases, the House filed charges against the Presidents, but neither was convicted. For Johnson, it was close. Conviction required a 2/3 vote in the Senate and it fell one vote short. However, the charges against him were ridiculous and resulted directly from a Congressional decision to precipitate a confrontation with a President that Congress hated. The situation was similar with Clinton and Republicans could not even hold the votes of their own party members, failing to receive even a simple majority of votes for conviction.

depittydawg

09-29-2010, 09:20 PM

So, your saying your pissed at Bush for spending 2 trillion over eight years in office and I haven't heard you say a word about the amount of money Obama has spent in just 20 months. Hasn't he already tripled that amount? Mind you, I am not as well versed in the BS as you and your cohorts, so I may be wrong.

Actually I expressed my disgust for the way Obama has run the country many times. Most significantly his pushing for the bailout designed by the Bush administration. What was it, 750 billion of borrowed tax payer dollars handed out to a few wall street firms... Yep, I'm pretty disgusted with Obama too.

david gibson

09-29-2010, 09:29 PM

If you notice, I said impeachment proceedings. Nixon resigned well into House impeachment hearings when it became obvious that he would be both charged by the House and convicted by the Senate if he remained in office. The pressure for his resignation came from members of his own party. In the other two cases, the House filed charges against the Presidents, but neither was convicted. For Johnson, it was close. Conviction required a 2/3 vote in the Senate and it fell one vote short. However, the charges against him were ridiculous and resulted directly from a Congressional decision to precipitate a confrontation with a President that Congress hated. The situation was similar with Clinton and Republicans could not even hold the votes of their own party members, failing to receive even a simple majority of votes for conviction.

i think a lot of people think that the definition of impeachment is to remove from office after impeachment proceedings. that is not the case. impeachment and impeachment proceedings are basically synonymous.

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an elected official is accused of unlawful activity, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office"

Roger Perry

09-30-2010, 10:36 AM

Why don't you give everyone more than 33 minutes to respond before you get all excited and attempt to gloat because you think we are 'chicken'? Hmm. Maybe some of us were working or training our dogs or taking a dump (any of which out rank attempting to conversate with you) during that 33 minutes while you were clicking the refresh button every 10 seconds to see if someone had responded to you.

Here's an idea for you. Why don't you start another thread and ask the same question? But instead of saying give specific examples and we'll go one by one and answer you. You might just be surprised. After all, if you have been paying attention (doubtful), you would realize that there are very few, if any, who are 100% happy with everything Bush did. I can't tell you this though--I was 100% happier when Obama wasn't the president.

Well, it has been almost 24 hours and the righties still have not responded. We go day after day with another post about Obama bashing. My question still stands. Would you righties have supported everything decision made by Bush had he been a democrat instead of republican? Yeah, even you Ducknwork. Bush was in office for 8 years and if you could go back to day 1 of his Presidency and critique his days in office would you support him or bash him like Obama is being bashed daily? Bush made decisions every day of his presidency.

david gibson

09-30-2010, 10:54 AM

Well, it has been almost 24 hours and the righties still have not responded. We go day after day with another post about Obama bashing. My question still stands. Would you righties have supported everything decision made by Bush had he been a democrat instead of republican? Yeah, even you Ducknwork. Bush was in office for 8 years and if you could go back to day 1 of his Presidency and critique his days in office would you support him or bash him like Obama is being bashed daily? Bush made decisions every day of his presidency.

us righties have never said we did support "everything decision made by Bush".

so whats the point?

and we would not bash him daily because he didnt do stupid things daily and lie daily and go to churches where the pastor creams "GD America" and Bush didnt hang out with people who bombed the pentagon or were real estate and tax cheats and chicago thugs (rohm) sending dead fish in the mail (when will he graduate to horse heads?) and he was an avowed christian well before his presidency and didnt just claim to be one once he realized the public thought he was muslim because his father was and Bush actually had experience running business and governments and actually earned his living in the private sector as opposed to being a "community organizer" .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................

need i go on?

WaterDogRem

09-30-2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by ducknwork
Why don't you give everyone more than 33 minutes to respond before you get all excited and attempt to gloat because you think we are 'chicken'? Hmm. Maybe some of us were working or training our dogs or taking a dump (any of which out rank attempting to conversate with you) during that 33 minutes while you were clicking the refresh button every 10 seconds to see if someone had responded to you.

Here's an idea for you. Why don't you start another thread and ask the same question? But instead of saying give specific examples and we'll go one by one and answer you. You might just be surprised. After all, if you have been paying attention (doubtful), you would realize that there are very few, if any, who are 100% happy with everything Bush did. I can't tell you this though--I was 100% happier when Obama wasn't the president.

Well, it has been almost 24 hours and the righties still have not responded. We go day after day with another post about Obama bashing. My question still stands. Would you righties have supported everything decision made by Bush had he been a democrat instead of republican? Yeah, even you Ducknwork. Bush was in office for 8 years and if you could go back to day 1 of his Presidency and critique his days in office would you support him or bash him like Obama is being bashed daily? Bush made decisions every day of his presidency.

First, no one has responded probably because it's you.
Second, When you got off topic you were asked to start a new thread on YOUR new Topic, bolded it when you quoted it, and then didn't follow directions.
Lastly, to your lame question "would have "righties" supported Bush if he was a dem?" The answer would be the same as it was with Bush the Rep. Yes & No. If he was a dem, I'm sure there would be less support but that's because he would be pushing a left agenda. But for the Wars, I would believe the majority of the public and congress would have supported a Dem president as they did Bush the Rep. Do you remember the atmosphere after 9/11? The public and congress would have been behind any president if he went to war!

david gibson

09-30-2010, 11:14 AM

First, no one has responded probably because it's you.
Second, When you got off topic you were asked to start a new thread on YOUR new Topic, bolded it when you quoted it, and then didn't follow directions.
Lastly, to your lame question "would have "righties" supported Bush if he was a dem?" The answer would be the same as it was with Bush the Rep. Yes & No. If he was a dem, I'm sure there would be less support but that's because he would be pushing a left agenda. But for the Wars, I would believe the majority of the public and congress would have supported a Dem president as they did Bush the Rep. Do you remember the atmosphere after 9/11? The public and congress would have been behind any president if he went to war!

funny - as i drove up i-45 to the hunt test this weekend, i passed a town named Centerville. about 7 miles east of there was the site of a crude pipeline rupture and i was doing the soil and groundwater assessment of the damages. there is a Days Inn right on the freeway, where i stayed. and i was in that hotel the night Bush came on and announced we were going to bring Iraq down. i remember shaking my head as i took one last bite of my Sonic burger, thinking this was not the right thing to do, i am not in agreement that this is necessary, but these guys have more intel than me.

a pretty somber memory as i passed by......so for the record, just because we backed bush and still place him far higher than obama in every category, it doesnt mean we followed in lock step.

Roger Perry

09-30-2010, 11:17 AM

First, no one has responded probably because it's you.
Second, When you got off topic you were asked to start a new thread on YOUR new Topic, bolded it when you quoted it, and then didn't follow directions.
Lastly, to your lame question "would have "righties" supported Bush if he was a dem?" The answer would be the same as it was with Bush the Rep. Yes & No. If he was a dem, I'm sure there would be less support but that's because he would be pushing a left agenda. But for the Wars, I would believe the majority of the public and congress would have supported a Dem president as they did Bush the Rep. Do you remember the atmosphere after 9/11? The public and congress would have been behind any president if he went to war!

That is precisely my point. Bush lied to Congress and the American people just so he could go to war with Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.

Roger Perry

09-30-2010, 11:24 AM

us righties have never said we did support "everything decision made by Bush".

so whats the point?

and we would not bash him daily because he didnt do stupid things daily and lie daily and go to churches where the pastor creams "GD America" and Bush didnt hang out with people who bombed the pentagon or were real estate and tax cheats and chicago thugs (rohm) sending dead fish in the mail (when will he graduate to horse heads?) and he was an avowed christian well before his presidency and didnt just claim to be one once he realized the public thought he was muslim because his father was and Bush actually had experience running business and governments and actually earned his living in the private sector as opposed to being a "community organizer" .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................

need i go on?

Every business Bush ran turned out to be a failure. Yeah, he had experience of running a company into the ground just as he ran the Country into the ground while he was President.

david gibson

09-30-2010, 11:25 AM

That is precisely my point. Bush lied to Congress and the American people just so he could go to war with Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.

dude, i swear if you went to my high school you would be hanging from a clothes hook by your tighty whities. that post no where agrees with your "point".

my lord you have fallen even lower......

Roger Perry

09-30-2010, 11:45 AM

dude, i swear if you went to my high school you would be hanging from a clothes hook by your tighty whities. that post no where agrees with your "point".

my lord you have fallen even lower......

If I went to a high school in Houston, I would probably be illerate. Besides back when I was in high school, I was a Republican. And the party has moved waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to far to the right for my liking.

ducknwork

09-30-2010, 11:48 AM

Well, it has been almost 24 hours and the righties still have not responded. We go day after day with another post about Obama bashing. My question still stands. Would you righties have supported everything decision made by Bush had he been a democrat instead of republican? Yeah, even you Ducknwork. Bush was in office for 8 years and if you could go back to day 1 of his Presidency and critique his days in office would you support him or bash him like Obama is being bashed daily? Bush made decisions every day of his presidency.

Here's an idea for you. Why don't you start another thread and ask the same question? But instead of saying
had done the things he did in office, give specific examples and we'll go one by one and answer you.

Still waiting, troll. Quit viewing that thread about the CA gov candidate and start your thread.

Better yet, I'll start one for you. You just fill out the specifics.

WaterDogRem

09-30-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterDogRem
First, no one has responded probably because it's you.
Second, When you got off topic you were asked to start a new thread on YOUR new Topic, bolded it when you quoted it, and then didn't follow directions.
Lastly, to your lame question "would have "righties" supported Bush if he was a dem?" The answer would be the same as it was with Bush the Rep. Yes & No. If he was a dem, I'm sure there would be less support but that's because he would be pushing a left agenda. But for the Wars, I would believe the majority of the public and congress would have supported a Dem president as they did Bush the Rep. Do you remember the atmosphere after 9/11? The public and congress would have been behind any president if he went to war!

That is precisely my point. Bush lied to Congress and the American people just so he could go to war with Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.That is precisely my point. Bush lied to Congress and the American people just so he could go to war with Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.

How did I prove any of your extreme wack-o cut/paste theories? And where did I say Bush lied?
You're not worth anyone's time here, so you're officially on mental ignore (so I can still see your daily lmao posts) until you have your own unique thoughts.

Roger Perry

09-30-2010, 02:43 PM

How did I prove any of your extreme wack-o cut/paste theories? And where did I say Bush lied?
You're not worth anyone's time here, so you're officially on mental ignore (so I can still see your daily lmao posts) until you have your own unique thoughts.

Here is what you said. Let me highlight a couple of sentences for you.

First, no one has responded probably because it's you.
Second, When you got off topic you were asked to start a new thread on YOUR new Topic, bolded it when you quoted it, and then didn't follow directions.
Lastly, to your lame question "would have "righties" supported Bush if he was a dem?" The answer would be the same as it was with Bush the Rep. Yes & No. If he was a dem, I'm sure there would be less support but that's because he would be pushing a left agenda. But for the Wars, I would believe the majority of the public and congress would have supported a Dem president as they did Bush the Rep. Do you remember the atmosphere after 9/11? The public and congress would have been behind any president if he went to war!

However it was not any President that lied about WMD that the Congress voted on to get us to go to war. And yes, I remember the atmosphere after 9/11. Here are a few quotes from our beloved President -------

September 17, 2001
http://articles.cnn.com/images/pixel.gif

Osama bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in last Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and the United States wants to capture him "dead or alive," President Bush said Monday
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-17/us/bush.powell.terrorism_1_bin-qaeda-terrorist-attacks?_s=PM:US

and less than a year later -----------------

Bush: So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.ā€¯ [3/13/02 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)]